Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 250 posts

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#51

Post by JumpCrisscross »

raxxorrax wrote: post #50
netcan wrote: post #17

$GME was always going to be a "Revolution That Wasn’t." Almost everyone playing knew it. IMO, it was kind of an exemplifier of postmodernism, used colloquially. All the "beat down hedgies" stuff was just part of the game, just like "fuck the fundamentals" was part of the game. IMO it has had an influence. A neurotic, dramatic lens through which we can look at financial institutions, more abstract economics. What is c…

I think it should started a discussion about some excesses of the stock market. Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once. Out of their own motives for profit or just for fun to be able to at least once stick it to speculators looking for easy profit. That trading was halted and "corrected" proved they had an impact…

> Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once

You’re describing accelerating creative destruction. It’s painful but good. Prevent it entirely and you cause stagnation.

We can make the human impact more compassionate. But trying to stop it is folly.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#52

Post by ahtihn »

Kaspar1313 wrote: post #42
mupuff1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see a short interest of 220%? Checking yahoo finance now it's listed at around 20%.

They've changed the way the calculate SI now. Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float] Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float] Ask yourself, why...

> Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float]

> Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float]

So you're saying that SI is always reported as higher than 100% now? Since that's not the cause, are you saying there's negative number of short shares now?

Maybe think for 2 seconds about your 2nd formula?

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#53

Post by JumpCrisscross »

simpleguitar wrote: post #31
carnitine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think not a single institutional investor has rallied behind this cause? Hedge funds love fucking each other over and would embrace popularity with the public. Why hasn’t some firm with a few billion under management taken up this cause if there’s really anything there?

Because that would be illegal market manipulation. Any institute, including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze. The SEC rules on this is quite clear. What's interesting to me is that the official SEC report on GameStop "squeeze" specifically called out that the rise in price WAS NOT due to short covering, but rather a large increase in retail buying and market…

> including GameStop themselves, would be committing a crime if they knowingly triggered a short squeeze

Issuers have precedent for issuing shares into shorts [1][2].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-03/amc-ha...

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#55

Post by kasey_junk »

goldnugget92 wrote: post #29
carnitine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think not a single institutional investor has rallied behind this cause? Hedge funds love fucking each other over and would embrace popularity with the public. Why hasn’t some firm with a few billion under management taken up this cause if there’s really anything there?

They have? Blackrock just added 10% to their stake recently. Not to mention the former-Amazon staff that GameStop is hiring along with the header of BlockChain at Microsoft mentioning working with GameStop on their new NFT Market Place. Don't just get your news from Bloomberg or CNN.

Blackrock and Vanguard own GME because they operate the biggest S&P ETFs and mutual funds.

GME has increased its percentage of the S&P because retail investors have bought the position. Blackrock is not taking a position that a short squeeze is possible they are just reacting to the index.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#56

Post by raxxorrax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
raxxorrax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should started a discussion about some excesses of the stock market. Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once. Out of their own motives for profit or just for fun to be able to at least once stick it to speculators looking for easy profit. That trading was halted and "corrected" proved they had an impact…

> Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once You’re describing accelerating creative destruction. It’s painful but good. Prevent it entirely and you cause stagnation. We can make the human impact more compassionate. But trying to stop it is folly.

You propose certainty where there is none and I am not talking about preventing it outright. I also do believe that it a profitable endeavour with very little general advantages as it is right now. That is more parasitic than constructive, so in that regard it fails to justify itself and regulation is required. Little would stagnate if modern fintech would be scraped almost entirely. Human impact should be secondary here.

Additionally creative destruction can also mean that I destroy the wealth of those that currently do profit from canceling companies prematurely. It is applicable to economies rebuilding after a war, not applicable to Gamestop. That is an excuse for exploitation.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#57

Post by NoboruWataya »

galcerte wrote: post #11
ggambetta wrote: post #4

It was a weird, fun ride. My writing partner Lutz and I work in tech, but have a real passion for filmmaking. We lost some money on $GME, so we had to tell the story from our point of view. The result is STONKS, a comedy/drama feature screenplay [0], fictional but inspired by the GME events, and a love letter of sorts to WSB. We queried Hollywood producers but were ignored; we shared on WSB itself but we were insta-b…

Most discussion around $GME takes place on r/Superstonk these days anyways. Can't remember why it was banned from WSB. Something to do with the new mods I believe.

I followed WSB for a couple of years before the GME thing kicked off. When it did, it was great fun for about a week, then I unsubscribed. It got very repetitive and boring.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#59

Post by netcan »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51
raxxorrax wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should started a discussion about some excesses of the stock market. Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once. Out of their own motives for profit or just for fun to be able to at least once stick it to speculators looking for easy profit. That trading was halted and "corrected" proved they had an impact…

> Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once You’re describing accelerating creative destruction. It’s painful but good. Prevent it entirely and you cause stagnation. We can make the human impact more compassionate. But trying to stop it is folly.

Perhaps, but honestly, I think Schumpeterian creative destruction is... at this point, more of an idealistic take.

It exists, but it isn't a permanent feature of the big fish economy that stock markets represent. There are processes like online travel retail overtaking travel agenting. That's a sort of creative destruction. Mostly though, travel agents were an SME sector. Like the proverbial (and literal) restaurant trade, they're subject to market forces in this way and the theory often plays out in practice. Heavy price competition. Creative destruction. Etc.

Banking OTOH, doesn't really have a creative destruction dynamic to speak of. Most auto manufacturers are what and who they were 20 or 50 years ago. Big tech, also, doesn't compete like restaurants do. It's more about holding control via network effects, platforms or whatnot. Avoiding head to head competition and market price dynamics entirely.

GME fell somewhere in the middle. They're kind of restaurant like, but also relatively big and publicly traded.

In any case, the financial meta game can often be more relevant and determinant of reality than market dynamics as per Schumpeter, JS Mill and the like.

Re: Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

netcan wrote: post #59
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rich people can look for battered companies and severely profit from their accelerated demise which some people wanted to fight against for once You’re describing accelerating creative destruction. It’s painful but good. Prevent it entirely and you cause stagnation. We can make the human impact more compassionate. But trying to stop it is folly.

Perhaps, but honestly, I think Schumpeterian creative destruction is... at this point, more of an idealistic take. It exists, but it isn't a permanent feature of the big fish economy that stock markets represent. There are processes like online travel retail overtaking travel agenting. That's a sort of creative destruction. Mostly though, travel agents were an SME sector. Like the proverbial (and literal) restaurant…

> Schumpeterian creative destruction is... at this point, more of an idealistic take

Schumpeterian creative destruction is an ideal. But the process of innovation it describes is well documented in the study of entrepreneurship, venture capital, new firm formation and the industrial dynamic of new entrance.

> isn't a permanent feature of the big fish economy that stock markets represent

Most of the stock market isn’t Goliaths. Formation and destruction still reigns in most of the economy. There, short sellers add value. (I’m more sceptical of private equity and its leverage tactics.)

> Banking OTOH, doesn't really have a creative destruction dynamic to speak of. Most auto manufacturers are what and who they were 20 or 50 years ago

Banking and auto manufacturers share a history in being bailed out. Big Tech looks like a classic market failure, though Facebook’s stumbling gives me pause on that conclusion.

Post reply on HN